Pramod Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4162 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Madhepura ====================================================== Pramod Sah S/O- Sri Jagarnath Sah Resident of Village- Rampur, Ward No.- 04, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Excise Case No. 135 of 2021 arising out of N.D.P.S Act Case No. 21 of 2021 , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii) (c) of N.D.P.S. Act.

As per allegation, 41.144 kg of Ganja was recovered from the dickey of a vehicle.

The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4162 of 2022(3) dt.06-12-2022 2/3 submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been submitted. Even charge has been framed.

The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 03.09.2021.

It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the petition that the petitioner has never moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail.

It has further been stated in paragraph no. 3 that the petitioner has been made accused in one more case. However, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that there is recovery of about 40 kg of Ganja from the dickey of a car. He further submits that petitioner was arrested on the spot.

I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

However if the trial is not concluded within 6 months, the petitioner has liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

The application stands rejected accordingly.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4162 of 2022(3) dt.06-12-2022 3/3 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) uttam/- U T